The Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI) was the most important Communist party in Western Europe. From the aftermath of World War II to the late 20th century, it underwent a convincing reinvention of its relationship with science and technology. Though initially spearheaded by humanists and social scientists, the PCI approached science almost exclusively from cultural angles. By the early 1960s, the party had come to acknowledge that science and technology were playing a central role in all forms of productive endeavor. Soon after getting this opportunity, they began participating in radical and collaborative dialogue to process these urgent matters.
This change was more than just academics. This emphasized a deeper awareness of how scientific progress affects social structures, particularly as the PCI recognized the work of people historically omitted from science’s narrative. This changed view became an important inflection point for the PCI. It was deeply ambitious and willing to put itself at the vanguard of the developing story of science’s place in society.
The Reflection on Science and Technology
The PCI’s commitment to the science deepened in the realization that it was going to become increasingly important in determining what processes would be productive. This simple observation served as the spark to our shared quest to define exactly what it is that makes science…well, science. In the early 1960s, party leaders began to articulate the importance of acknowledging the contributions of marginalized scientists and thinkers. This movement was part of a larger global trend toward opening science to be more inclusive and accessible to the public.
While the PCI continued to debate its identity and place in the world, it still situated science between the lines of existing worldwide disparities. This approach prompted a comprehensive evaluation of how scientific development could contribute to social change, particularly in relation to worker rights and equity. The party leaders, and especially general secretary Enrico Berlinguer, realized that scientific progress should not be separated from social issues.
This great collective reflection on the role of science forced many to reckon with the biases baked into it. The PCI’s conversation shifted to focus on the “non-neutrality” of science, recognizing how scientific practices could reproduce societal power relations. This perspective led to critical discussions within the party about the implications of scientific advancements for Italian society and its workers.
Austerity Policy and Global Relations
In the 1980s, the political landscape changed overnight with the implementation of neoliberalism and the downfall of the Soviet Union. In reaction, the PCI abandoned its Marxist-Leninist origins and adopted a social democratic agenda. This change was highlighted by the implementation of the “austerity policy,” elaborated by Berlinguer. The policy approach focuses on advancing workers’ role in productive capacity. It seeks to develop new, more equitable relationships with the Global South.
The PCI’s harsh austerity policy was meant to address historical inequalities. It advocated for the equitable allocation of resources and access to opportunities to address the disparities in the world. The party focused on the importance of technological progress that serves all parts of society. They framed science within this context to avoid reinforcing existing power structures.
This approach showed a larger dedication to fulfilling social change through advancing scientific impact. The PCI sought to mediate these developments, ensuring that advancements in science would contribute positively to society rather than exacerbate inequalities. This serious commitment to just scientific advancement was indicative of a broader realization of the complex relationship between technology, society, and politics.
Controversies Surrounding Nuclear Energy
The PCI organization experienced deep internal conflict over the PCI’s opposition to nuclear energy during the 1970s. Party leadership admitted that nuclear power might be a better, cleaner alternative to oil. They were attuned to the dangers of nuclear pollution and the danger of militarization due to increased militarization from heightened security measures surrounding nuclear sites.
This conundrum also represented the national dilemma when it came to safety and protecting our environment. The PCI’s leadership wanted to get ahead of the curve by supporting the introduction of nuclear energy. They considered if it would further their objective of increasing social justice or counterproductively reinforce a racist, militarized state apparatus. These types of discussions illuminate the nuances and complexities involved in balancing scientific progress with the safety of workers and the environment.
Daniele Cozzoli’s scholarly examination of how the PCI channeled social justice and then unleashed scientific advancement to global heights. His insights illuminated the party’s challenges in reconciling its ideological commitments with practical realities surrounding technological adoption.
